Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections.
Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hol...
| Publicado en: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 24; no. 4; pp. 1347 - 1366 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Aug2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=131259649&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 131259649 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Aug2018 vid: 24 iid: 4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 131259649 10.1007/s11948-017-9921-3 ppf: 1347 ppct: 19 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 489KB tig: atl: Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections. aug: au: Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. Al-Khatib, Aceil Katavić, Vedran Bornemann-Cimenti, Helmar affil: P.O. Box 7, Miki-cho Post Office, 3011-2, 761-0799, Ikenobe, Kagawa-ken, Japan Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 3030, 22110, Irbid, Jordan Department of Anatomy, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Šalata 11, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 29, 8036, Graz, Austria su: Literature rejected for publication Prevention of fraud in science Guidelines Science publishing Scholarly peer review Quality control sug: subj: Literature rejected for publication Prevention of fraud in science Guidelines Science publishing Scholarly peer review Quality control keyword: Costs Formatting Peer review Wasted time and effort ab: Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment. In such a climate, timing is everything, as is the efficiency of the process. Academics appreciate that rejections are part of the fabric of attempting to get a paper published, but they expect the reason to be clear, based on careful evaluation of their work, and not on superficial or unsubstantiated excuses. A desk rejection occurs when a paper gets rejected even before it has entered the peer review process. This paper examines the features of some desk rejections and offers some guidelines that would make desk rejections valid, fair and ethical. Academics who publish are under constant pressure to do so quickly, but effectively. They are dependent on the editors’ good judgment and the publisher’s procedures. Unfair, unsubstantiated, or tardy desk rejections disadvantage academics, and editors and publishers must be held accountable for wasting their time, resources, and patience. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2018 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|